Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-05-15
TIE SUPREME COURT.

A. H Willie, chief justice; ]. W. Stayton and
r. E. Gaines, associate justices; @. S. Morse,
clerk; Nj. NJ. johnson, bailif.
E. L. Anthony ct al, vs.. Boyd Taylor
from Milan county; opinion by Stayton,
Al. On April 5, 1878, Joan and Will
liam Bankhead recovered q Judgment
against w. T. and j. r. Roberts. On
May 20, 1878, an execution was issued
but was returned without levy or salts
faction June 5, and no other execution
was issued until October %; 1884, and 1t
was levied on the land in controversy
which was sold under it. On May IS,
1881, the abstract of judgment was re-
corded in favor of Joan and William
Burkhead instead OF Joan and William
Bankhead, and indexed in the same man
ner. The land in controversy was con-
veyed to Julia, wife of W. 7.
Roberts, October 20, 1882. On.
December s, 1888, the land was corr
veyed to appellees by a bona fde safe.
appellants must show lien to recover,
but this they failed to do because an exeS5
cution was not issued every Twelve
months to keep the Judgment alisE3as q
lien. The recording of the abstract OF
the Judgment puts appellants in no better
position, IS it was recorded in favor Of
Bukrhead instead Of Bankhead, which ske
not idem sonaus. The judgment4fs
affirmed.
W. E. Shinn ct al. VS.. e. P. Hieks ct
al, from Wise county; opinion by Stay
| ton, Al. The contention in this case
was concerning a tract OF land granted
under bounty warrant issued to G. w.
Lemoyne by the Secretary of War, No
vember 80, 1883, which on it's face de-
clared that said "Lemoyne by his
attorney, T. D. Tompkins, is entitled
to ALLEVIATE, convey, etc, the same, etc"
On January s, 1889, Tompkins conveyed
the certificate by an Endorsement on its
back for $3.50. 1t finally, by duly execut-
| ed conveyances, came to the hands of B.
F. Wright, who October 6, 1851, made
contract for locating it with one ID. 4.
Mitchell, who did so and returned the
certificate with the survey, to the general
land office.
July 8, 1860, Thomas Green, as agent
of LemOyne, filed protest in the land
Office against the issuance Of 8 patent to
any other than Lemoyne.
There was an affidavit that one of the
plaintiffs believed that the words Shy
his attorney, F. D. Tompkins," on TEE
face of the certificate were q forgery.
Lie pLIuCipdl uSuI USlOW N"S III VIZ"
ruling of the court in allowing
the original certificate to be in
trOduced in evidence without proving
it, and also allowing the land COM
missioner to testify as to certain records
in his Office. As to the former objection,
it is & rule to allow ancient papers kept in
the proper custody to be introduced as evil
denCe. The certificate is nearly fifty years
old. AS to the latter, it is customary to
allow an officer to testify as to the records
of his Office and explain them. Appel
lants ask the court to charge that, as
there was an affidavit of forgery, that ap-
pellees must prove that the words "by
his attorney, T. D. Tompkins" were in
serted by authority of Lemoyne. This
charge was correctly refused. It must
be now taken for granted that Tompklns
showed the Secretary of War that he had
authority TO insert the words. The
court erred in instructing that three
years adverse possession of the certificate
would give title to it by limitations, out
there is no assignment of error, so that
this ruling can be revised. No other dis
position of this case could be made undeI
the evidence and 1t is affirmed.
All. & 81. r. Duff VS.. II. P. Moore
from Hill county; opinion by Gaines, a
u. The land in controversy lies between
two surveys, viz, the Whitcomb and The
Yeoman. Appellants claim under the
former or junior survey, and appellee
under the latter or senior survey. The
field notes of the Whltcomb call for Its
south boundary line as coincldent with
the north boundary of the other, but
taking the north boundary OF the
Whitcomb and running the courses and
distances the south line does not CO.
incide with the north line of the other,
and the difference between these IS the
land commended for. Both surveys were
run by the same surveyor about three
weeks apart, and the question comes
down to which of the claimants must
prove that the land belongs to
him. There is no marked line
and running the Whltcomb survey by the
field notes it cannot be made to incl9ae
the land in controversy. The burdenkoi
proof was upon appellants to show that
/ their patent embraced the land sued for,
and this they failed to do. The court dig
- IS :